Theresa Brooke v. Westchase Mini Suites LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 7, 2023
• Docket: 22-55855
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 7 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THERESA BROOKE, a married woman No. 22-55855 dealing with her sole and separate claim, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02943-MCS-PLA Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

WESTCHASE MINI SUITES LLC, DBA Best Western Plus Thousand Oaks Inn, a California limited liability company,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Theresa Brooke appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing for

lack of standing her disability discrimination action alleging claims under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Act. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. D’Lil v. Best W. Encina

Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brooke’s ADA claim for lack of

standing because Brooke failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that she

planned to return to defendant’s hotel. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.,

631 F.3d 939, 950 (9th Cir. 2011) (to establish Article III standing, an ADA

plaintiff must show either an “inten[t] to return to a noncompliant accommodation”

or that the noncompliant accommodation deterred the plaintiff from visiting and

the plaintiff “plans to visit [the] noncompliant accommodation in the future”); see

also Civ. Rts. Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Props. Tr., 867 F.3d 1093, 1100 (9th Cir.

2017) (“[C]oncrete travel plans would be sufficient to show that a disabled plaintiff

intends to visit a facility . . . .”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental

jurisdiction over Brooke’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); Vo v.

Choi, 49 F.4th 1167, 1171-73 (9th Cir. 2022) (setting forth standard of review and

explaining when a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh

Act claims under § 1367(c)(4)).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-55855